|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
Agencies with Attitude: The National Park Service, Forest Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
By Julie Kay Smithson
October 12, 2006
The perception of the friendly and truly knowledgeable park ranger may be numbered. It's not that he (or she) is less friendly than the federal employees encountered on family vacations in the 1960s; it's that his or her top-level "policy makers" have honed their land acquisition strategies over the decades. The friendly park ranger may now pack a side arm, wear a rather frosty smile and insist that you leave the family car or SUV in the parking area and board a bus for your not-so-personal "tour." The "interpretive centers" may bear some resemblance to the toll road "service centers" of the 1970s, stocked with tourist items to purchase, including "histories" of the now-federally owned lands you are visiting. It's likely that the friendly ranger was not even born when the lands he or she is paid to "historically interpret" were converted from private to federal ownership. The ranger will probably bandy about the phrase "willing seller," perhaps painting it as something desirable to the former owners. After all, most of the former owners are now deceased; they cannot speak for themselves and tell the real story of "willing sellers." http://www.moosecove.com/propertyrights/MMNHP/newsarticles/CJ-Kriz-880714.shtml The real history of "willing seller, willing buyer" is a vitally important read: http://www.moosecove.com/propertyrights/thott/WillingSellerWillingBuyer.shtml
While there is no official definiton of "willing seller," one could reasonably determine that "willing sellers" are often harried, coerced, bitter, property owners who have learned, often to their dismay, that a federal agency is the only "willing buyer" due to the less than "good neighbor" reputation preceding it. Once upon a time, it was an attractive selling point to have property that bordered a national park, national wildlife refuge, national forest, etc. Now that the insatiable "Pac-Man" land acquisition appetite of the various Department of Interior agencies has become more widely known, what once enhanced the value of property, now can make its worth plummet to the "bargain basement." Property use restrictions (called "land use restrictions" by the agencies) that accompany one's property having "habitat," "possible habitat," "potential habitat," etc., are also contributing factors to the decline in a property's value -- and the resultant "willing seller," when no one else will buy that which an agency has in its crosshairs.
Most people, whose property has come to be called "inholdings," can vouch for the arrogance of this Department of Interior agency. A closer look at actual National Park Service (NPS) documents, including, but not limited to, published works like "Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History," provides a very different face worn by this agency.
Depending upon whether you are visiting a National Park -- often a place where real people used to actually live, work and own property -- or whether you are the owner of such private property, dubbed "inholdings," you are likely to have an "other side of the spectrum" view of the NPS.
Beginning ninety or so years ago and continuing to the present, the National Park Service and its parent agency, the extra-constitutional Department of Interior (DOI), have PacManned their way through what could be termed an obscene amount of private property, using various means of creating "willing sellers." One current reference invents many new phrases to describe a property acquisition and control agenda that is almost beyond comprehension by the average "Joe:" Western Pacific Regional Sourcebook: Chapter 2. Types of Airspace and National Park System Units, National Park Service http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/PDF_docs/chapter2.pdf
It is difficult to improve upon actual wording, so we'll let National Park Service authors and chroniclers do the talking. Not only their definitions, but also their historical telling of these places now known as National Parks, National Recreation Areas, National Monuments, National Battlefields, etc., leave the thoughtful reader with more questions than answers. It may seem like dry and unexciting reading to start, but this will likely change in just a few dozen words. Prepare to be surprised, disappointed, and possibly change the way you think of the National Park Service.
Inholding (numbered, because there are no fewer than ten different definitions) An inholding is a parcel of land in a unit of the National Park System that was authorized before July 1959 or fiscal year 1960. The National Park Service pursues, subject to the availability of funds appropriated for the acquisition of inholdings, an opportunity-purchase program by acquiring interests in inholdings offered for sale by landowners. The Service will seek to acquire inholdings by condemnation only when necessary to prevent land use that would damage resources that the unit was established to protect. Such condemnation action or the purchase of an inholding for an amount that exceeds $150,000 and/or the appraised value must be cleared by the appropriate House and Senate Committees. Costs related to the acquisition of lands by exchange are incurred for title and appraisals, required surveys and clearances, and equalization payments when necessary. Need: As of September 30, 1998, there were approximately 2,281 tracts in 32 units identified as inholding areas, totaling 29,013 acres with an estimated value of approximately $255 million. The funds requested will be used, (1) to acquire inholdings, and (2) to cover costs (other than land acquisition administration costs) for title, appraisal, surveys and equalization payments required for exchanges in those areas for which acquisition funds are not otherwise available. Justification of Program and Performance. Activity: Federal Land Acquisition, National Park Service http://home.nps.gov/applications/budget/land_and_state/laaq-nar.pdf (Page 7 of 42 pages) Other references to the way the National Park Service deals with inholdings: 1. Montezuma Castle National Monument http://www.nps.gov/archive/moca/protas/chap6.htm
2. Outdoor Recreation / Socioeconomic Environment Volume 2 Draft Heritage Study and Environmental Assessment [excerpt]: Tennessee has recognized the following priority issues related to public recreation areas: identifying and mitigating threats to natural resources that adversely affect the quality of recreation, increasing the delivery and quality of recreation services at the local level, and increasing federal, state, and local government funding for recreation. The state Conservation Strategic Plan focuses on the first of these issues, saying that "Emphasis will he placed upon securing adequate boundary control for existing Department lands including the consideration of high priority inholding and buffer land acquisition." http://www.cr.nps.gov/delta/volume2/outdoor.htm
3. Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley (Connecticut) IV. Vision Statement and Goal (excerpt): G. Recreation Goal number 1 (of 9). Pursue active land acquisition programs, emphasizing key inholding in existing management areas and access to streams and water bodies. ... V. Detailed Strategies A. Land Use. Although the Corridor includes the entire area of twenty-five towns, the land use vision is to protect those key landscape features that make the region unique or attractive to residents and tourists alike, and to minimize those elements that have a visually or environmentally degrading impact. Thus, emphasis necessarily must be placed on landscape that is significant, identifiable and amenable to be protected, enhanced, or controlled through available programs and management techniques. Key examples include: 1. Traditional New England Villages. Often labeled Hill Towns or Colonial Villages. With their white churches and old homes often clustered around a green, these villages within towns are popularly perceived as a key symbol of the New England landscape. Appropriate protection tools include historic districts, development control in areas abutting them, and zoning and/or acquisition. ...6. ...b. Natural segments (those reaches of rivers outside developed areas and characterized by forested or agricultural land) Regulation can include existing inland wetland controls that protect floodplain areas, perhaps also including provision of a buffer belt. Sample buffer guidelines could include adjoining area with a +15% slope, maintenance of a 50 foot vegetated belt where presently existing, no septic fields within 100 feet of inland wetland, a minimum 100 foot river frontage for new lots, etc. Selective acquisition to protect scenic areas or where public access is deemed appropriate also should be utilized. Primary emphasis must be placed on the two major streams in the region, the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers. In addition, a large number of attractive secondary streams also deserve attention, including the Willimantic, Fenton, Natchaug, Mt. Hope, French, Five Mile, Yantic, Pachaug, and Moosup Rivers plus the two Little rivers and some major brooks such as Bigelow Brook. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/nhc/quinebaug.htm
4. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History (Chapter 3) Perpetuating Tradition: The National Parks under Stephen T. Mather, 1916-1929 (continued) (excerpt) Indeed, from the first, the Service made acquisition of private lands a high priority. Consolidation of all lands within park boundaries would allow control over development in the parks. To reduce the threat of inappropriate development, the Park Service continually sought to acquire inholdings, accepting them as direct donations, purchasing them, or swapping them for federal lands elsewhere. [68] The 1918 Lane Letter declared that privately owned lands "seriously hamper the administration of these reservations" and advocated their elimination. Those in "important scenic areas" had the highest priority for acquisition. But for nearly a decade Congress failed to appropriate funds for buying inholdings, thereby forcing the Service to rely on private donations for such purchases. Mather himself contributed substantially to land acquisition in Sequoia and other parks, such as Yosemite and Glacier. Under the Service's prodding, Congress in 1927 and 1928 began to make regular appropriations for inholding purchases, but with the requirement that these funds be matched by private donations. In 1929, shortly after Mather's resignation, Director Albright predicted that reliance on private funds would not be satisfactory because potential donors felt that acquisition of park lands was the government's responsibility. Although Mather had secured some congressional funding, the inholdings remained, in Albright's words, one of the Service's "greatest problems"-a threat to the parks' integrity, and a "distinct menace to good administration and future development." [69] Albright's remarks foreshadowed a long, still-ongoing struggle to control inholdings. http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/sellars/chap3c.htm
5. Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan / EIS Affected Environment (continued) (excerpt) Proposed Protection Methods Proposed protection methods for the nonfederal areas within the park include long- and short-term strategies. Short-term protection strategies include land-use regulation at Wawona. Section 10(e) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act allows federal agencies to enter cooperative agreements with states and local governments in the administration of a river segment. While no incorporated cities exist within the corridor and no local zoning guidelines have been issued by the Secretary, it is the intent of the National Park Service to work with Mariposa County during the development of any future zoning ordinances to ensure that such zoning is consistent with the purposes of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Under all alternatives, the National Park Service would continue to assist, advise, and cooperate with Mariposa County or its political subdivisions, private landowners, private organizations, and individuals to protect and manage private lands along the Merced River and to protect ORVs where nonfederal lands are within the river corridor. Land-use regulation will provide the primary protection at Wawona, along with opportunity purchases and land exchanges. Private property within the river corridor is not zoned under any of the alternatives of the Merced River Plan. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire lands and interests in lands within the authorized boundaries of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced River under Section 6(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and to use condemnation to acquire easements on lands within the corridor when necessary. The vast majority of lands within the river corridor are owned in fee title by the United States, and the National Park Service has no intention of acquiring additional lands in fee title by condemnation under authority of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. However, it is the intent of the National Park Service to work cooperatively with private landowners whenever possible within the corridor to ensure that ORVs of the river segment are protected and enhanced. Yosemite National Park is identified as an inholding area, and there is no acquisition ceiling for the park. Priorities include acquisition of tracts in Wawona within the Merced Wild and Scenic River corridor, and undeveloped land adjacent to open public areas. http://www.nps.gov/archive/yose/planning/mrp/2000/html/mrpch3a.html
6. Joshua Tree National Park [excerpt] Organizations like the Wildlands Conservancy and the National Park Land Trust have stepped in to help the park acquire inholding properties from willing sellers. Through their efforts, thousands of acres of private lands have been added to the park, ensuring both their permanent protection and public access. The National Parks and Conservation Association has worked to raise public awareness of national park issues at Joshua Tree and elsewhere throughout the California Desert. http://www.nps.gov/parkoftheweek/jotr.htm Source of this information: Google search results: 1-102 English pages from nps.gov for acquisition OR acquire "inholding" with Safesearch on.
Lest the reader think only the National Park Service shares this condescending view of inholders, here are Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Biological Information Infrastructure definitions:
7. Lands within the proclaimed boundaries of a national forest or national grassland that are owned by some other agency, organization or individual. See also Alienated and Alienated Land. Appendix H (Biological Assessment and Evaluation for Revised Land and Resource Management Plans and Associated Oil and Gas Leasing Decisions) http://www.fs.fed.us/ngp/final/pdf_feis/Appendix_H.pdf
8. Privately owned land inside the boundary of a national refuge. http://pacific.fws.gov/planning/LPOccp/v2.pdf
9. A parcel of land in other ownership (State, private, other Federal agency) surrounded by National Forest System land. USDA Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) "Source documents for these definitions include: proposed Road Policy, proposed Planning Regulations, Interim Roads Rule Environmental Assessment, and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Planning Guide." http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/glossary.shtml
10. Land belonging to one landowner that occurs within a block of land belonging to another. For example, small parcels of private land that occur inside National Forest. The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) http://pnwin.nbii.gov/nwfp/FEMAT/ Chapter 9 Glossary http://pnwin.nbii.gov/nwfp/FEMAT/Chapter_9.htm NBII The National Biological Information Infrastructure. Also spelled in holding. See also Alienated Land.
Alienated Land Land of one ownership [that is] enclosed within [the] boundaries of another ownership. Often refers to land in private ownership within the boundaries of public land. National Grassland Plan (USDA Forest Service) http://www.fs.fed.us/ngp/draft/plan/pdf_plan_draft/Dakota_Prairie_Plan/Appendices/appendix_g.pdf
For a last look at the National Park Service attitude toward land it does not (yet?) own:
Mission 66 Post-World War II America was a rapidly growing, affluent, automobile-crazed country. Better highways and increased leisure time made summer trips available to virtually every American. By the mid-1950s, it seemed every American was visiting the national parks. Visitation increased from 6 million people in 1942 to 33 million in 1950, 50 million in 1955, and 72 million in 1960. [1] Yet, few facilities had been constructed in the parks since CCC days, and appropriations (all but eliminated during World War II) had been curtailed again during the Korean conflict. Director Conrad L. Wirth, who assumed the helm of the National Park Service in 1951, had finally seen enough of the deteriorating conditions. He called for a comprehensive study of all the problems facing the National Park Service -- protection, staffing, interpretation, use, development, financing, needed legislation, forest protection, fire -- and all other phases of park management. [2] President Eisenhower enthusiastically endorsed the study and Congress responded generously to the resulting Mission 66 plan. More than one billion dollars were allocated to the national parks from 1956 to 1966, to construct new roads and trails, visitor centers, maintenance, and employee housing, and to acquire private lands and water rights. The Mission 66 project also upgraded resource management programs and re-evaluated present and future concessions within the parks. It was proposed that some parks and monuments be free of any private lodging or services within their boundaries. [3] Mission 66 was a thorough master plan for the entire National Park Service, rather than the usual piecemeal, year-to-year planning effort. Mission 66 initiated a period of intense, National Park Service development paralleled only by CCC construction effort of the Great Depression -- and even the CCC era didn't see a complete evaluation of overall park management, as occurred during Mission 66. Not everyone concurred that Mission 66 development was good for the national parks. ... Acquiring The Private Inholdings: The dilemma over what to do with the small tracts of private land in the orchard farm community of Fruita had troubled National Park Service officials since the monument was first proposed. The first boundaries had even excluded Fruita. The early master plans had, at first, recommended the immediate purchase of all the private lands, then later concluded that they posed no imminent threat. [15] Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the limited number of tourists and the correspondingly minimal agency appropriations enabled Fruita to continue much as it always had. The social makeup of Fruita, however, was changing from solid Mormon to a mix of traditional families, non-Mormon retirees, and tourist operations residing under the newly imposed rules of the National Park Service. First to move in was Doc Inglesby, a retired, non-Mormon dentist and tour operator, followed by the National Park Service and Charles Kelly. By the mid-1940s the Capitol Reef Lodge was under construction, and a few years later the Giffords built their own motel (Fig. 12). The Mulfords also ran a small cafe and gas station at the south end of Fruita. By the end of the 1950s, the inholdings were four original Mormon fruit farms owned by Cora Oyler Smith, Clarence Chesnut, Dewey Gifford, and Cass Mulford, and another five tracts owned by Max Krueger, Doc Inglesby, artists Richard and Elizabeth Sprang, the retired Dean Brimhall, and lodge-owner Archie Bird. There was also a portion of a state section along the proposed right-of-way east of Fruita, owned by Wonderland Stages (a Salt Lake City tour company); and Lurton Knee's Sleeping Rainbow Guest Ranch was operating out of Pleasant Creek. The old, insulated, idealized Mormon community of Fruita had indeed changed. In fact, local Mormon ownership was distinctly in the minority when proceedings began to buy out Capitol Reef National Monument's inholdings. [16] As mentioned earlier, inholding acquisition was a priority under Mission 66. According to an agency monograph detailing the needs and purpose of the project: Development of these [non-federal] lands as private homesites or for commercial enterprises detrimental to the parks, the hindrance they present to orderly park development, and the problems they present to management and protection, warrant their acquisition at the earliest practicable date. [17] Given this priority to acquire inholdings, it is curious that Acting Regional Director Hugh Miller argued that the National Park Service should not make a "concentrated effort" to purchase the lands in Fruita. Miller believed park service purchase of the private lands would "destroy this little community," which was "in itself an 'exhibit in place,' a typical Mormon settlement which ha[d] retained much of its early day charm." [18] Zion Superintendent Paul Franke, who had long dealt with the problems at Fruita, was more than a little upset at this recommendation. With Mission 66 money soon to be available, this seemed the perfect opportunity to resolve the issue. In his reply to Miller, Franke strongly objected to the idea that Fruita was of historical importance: The historic features listed in your memorandum, and by the experts, are not visible to me. The worn out buildings are such that even the most pious Mormon would disown. Historic quaintness may be associated with the 'old timers.' However, their time in a permanent exhibit is but a passing moment. ...How can we build a typical 'Mormon Community' out of such temporary variables as human beings? These are transient values and we should not let our misguided sympathies for a few 'old timers' and their structures, even if adorned 'with star and crescent', divert our attention from the real values and significant points of Capitol Reef. [19] Franke urged that plans not be considered based on the Capitol Reef of 15 years earlier or even of the present, but on the inevitable fact that the new, proposed paved road through the monument would bring hundreds of thousands of tourists into an area that was not prepared to handle them. According to Franke, at absolute minimum, all the private holdings north of the Fremont River should be purchased for National Park Service development, and the lands south of the river could then be used for private concessions. Franke rejected the position of Kelly and Regional Land Chief John Kell that the Max Krueger land at the far eastern edge of Fruita was enough for preliminary development: that parcel was too flood-prone and could not accommodate all the needed facilities. Franke's motivation to purchase Fruita seems to be based on perceived National Park Service needs for development. If he could demonstrate that the inholdings were, indeed, dilapidated, then his argument would be that much more persuasive. [20] The Mission 66 Prospectus for Capitol Reef National Monument, written mostly by Franke, recommended purchasing most, if not all, the private inholdings in the monument. The 1956 document, as approved by Director Wirth, stated: There is no justification for maintaining the old settlement of Fruita because it is neither typical of pioneer settlements nor is there any value that might enhance understanding or appreciation of the area. Reduced to its proper perspective acquisition of the private lands within the monument is in accordance with Service policy and need not constitute a major undertaking. The total estimated cost of the proposed land purchases and water rights is $125,000. We hope to exchange out around 1900 acres of State owned land. [21] The determination that Fruita lacked historical significance is key to understanding why there was no effort to retain historical integrity once the lands were purchased. Notably, however, all arguments about Fruita's significance are based on buildings and people rather than on the orchards, irrigation ditches, and land use patterns. Since most of the buildings and all the people are now gone, these orchards, ditches, and fields are, as of the mid-1990s, the crux of many land-use decisions. Yet these aspects were not even mentioned in most of the correspondence and planning documents related to Mission 66 or the purchase of the private inholdings. By the end of 1955 it was determined that every private inholding would be purchased in its entirety, for either future developments, the road right-of-way, or both. [22] The land was to be purchased in two installments: the first would free up the proposed Fremont River corridor highway right-of-way, and the second would secure all other lands south of the proposed road. From this point on, the Fremont River road construction and purchase of most of the private inholdings would be intertwined (Fig. 13). [23] The final decision to go with the Fremont River corridor route in 1958 hastened the need for the first phase of property purchases. The Cora Smith and Max Krueger inholdings were appraised in 1958, but neither was willing to sell. [24] The difficulties with Smith and Krueger were the most cumbersome of the early land deals, portending later troubles. By the end of June 1959, the survey of the Fremont River road was complete, but construction could not begin until the right-of-way purchases could be made. [25] The tensions arising from acquisition of the inholdings were exacerbated by delays in the appraisal process. By 1960, these delays were holding up road construction. Superintendent Krueger found himself pressured from all sides. The State of Utah was ready to begin construction, and the Associated Civic Clubs of Southern Utah, the Wayne County Lions Club, and the Utah congressional delegation were insisting that the National Park Service get the money appropriated and start the road as soon as possible. It must have been frustrating for local and state tourism boosters finally to see their long-desired road within reach, only to have the project delayed again by the slow process of transferring the private landholdings into federal ownership. Added pressures from businessmen wanting a share of the expected tourist dollars from the nearly completed Glen Canyon Dam, south of Capitol Reef, didn't help the situation. [26] To put even more pressure on the National Park Service, the ceremony to open bids for the roads construction drew over 1,000 people in October 1960. [27] The lengthy appraisal process on five separate inholdings and the continued intransigence of Cora Smith and Max Krueger forced the National Park Service to proceed with condemnation. Finally, on June 2, 1961, a Declaration of Taking was filed on five tracts of land totaling a little over 284 acres. These tracts were owned by Krueger, Smith, the Brimhalls, the Sprangs, and Utah Wonderland Stages. An additional, 37-acre tract was purchased from the Brimhalls at about the same time. Acquisition of these lands finally cleared the right-of-way for the new highway, which was begun in August only to be shut down by summer flooding until September. [28] The bitter dispute over the Smith and Krueger properties ended up in court, where both were awarded a good deal more money than had been offered by the federal government. [29] Krueger was so upset by the whole process that he wondered "just where the difference lies between socialism, extreme bureaucracy, and communism." [30] Smith, on the other hand, never had any intention to sell and, as a matter of fact, never even gave an asking price. Today, she seems bitter that everyone else was sold out so easily. She simply "didn't want it to change." Smith recalls, "I wanted it like it was. And that's the only thing I got agin' it. I thought them people was all nuts for selling their places and they did. They sold 'em." [31] Lurton Knee, whose Sleeping Rainbow Ranch escaped this round of private land purchases, was a witness to the buyout. According to Knee, the people of Fruita had "had enough of the hard work and the isolation, yes, but mostly the hard work." Knee added that, contrary to the opinions held by many in neighboring communities, the residents were not forced out but were more than willing to sell out. In fact, only in the Krueger and Smith cases was the amount of money an issue. As for the houses themselves, Knee recalled years later, "most of the people's homes there were just shacks and there was nothing you could do to preserve them." He added, "But the people did resent [their being torn down] because that was their home, you understand that." [32] Because of the rapid changes that occurred in Fruita in the early 1960s, a lot of untruths have emerged. Some local residents, and even visitors from other states, believe that the National Park Service pushed these people out against their will and irreversibly altered the Fruita landscape, intending to wiping out all Mormon presence. Documents, however, argue that most landowners, who again were not of local origin, were more than willing to sell. Their land was "condemned" only because it sped the process so that roadwork could begin. Insofar as altering the landscape, it is true that most of the houses, which almost everyone agreed were in very poor condition, were torn down. That some homes were destroyed right after the residents moved out angered some in the community, but the National Park Service couldn't afford to wait. In this author's opinion, any animosity toward Capitol Reef management as a result of the inholding purchases probably has more to do with the speed of the process than with anything else. The local residents were used to a quiet, isolated, and unchanging life in Fruita. In over 20 years of the monument's existence, nothing much had really changed. Then, in a relative blink of an eye, the residents were gone, the houses torn down, and a road was paved through the canyon. That kind of rapid change in any slow-paced, rural environment was bound to upset a few people. Capitol Reef, Administrative History Chapter 7: Mission 66 Development: 1955 to 1966 [excerpt] http://www.nps.gov/care//resources/admin%20history/adhi7.htm
It seems a shame that some of America's most magnificent places were acquired by federal employees with such views toward private property and property rights, but the facts bear this out: the Department of Interior and its agencies often view property rights and private property -- as well as private property owners and their Constitutionally protected rights -- very differently than we thought they did.
There is much more on this topic here: http://www.moosecove.com/propertyrights/index.shtml#willingsellermyth
Please visit http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/ebook/index.htm for an extensive glossary of more words, phrases and acronym explanations
Permission to post from the author.